Teachers strike- right to sue for loss of earnings
Discussion
Whilst the teachers strike does not effect me, I am wondering what the potential is for parents to sue the unions for loss of earnings as a result of not being able to work on thursday. I would have thought there is an argument here as it seems the unions have gone out of their way to make the disruption as widespread as possible by instructing other steachers not to take on classes of pupils whose teachers are striking. Clearly such a lawsuit would require mass co-operation of parents for this to make any real impact. But if it could be achieved it could produce an interesting battleground. What would the union response be I wonder?
ExChrispy Porker said:
No
Trade Disputes Act 1906
Excellent answer... How about repealing the act. How would that effect strikes in general in the future? On the basis that strikes don't achieve their desired objectives and are a rather primitive form of trying to get your way, it would surely force unions to take a more considered approach to negotiations rather than throwing their rattles out of their prams...Trade Disputes Act 1906
Rob_T said:
Excellent answer... How about repealing the act. How would that effect strikes in general in the future? On the basis that strikes don't achieve their desired objectives and are a rather primitive form of trying to get your way, it would surely force unions to take a more considered approach to negotiations rather than throwing their rattles out of their prams...
not by Thursday they won't.Rob_T said:
Whilst the teachers strike does not effect me, I am wondering what the potential is for parents to sue the unions for loss of earnings as a result of not being able to work on thursday. I would have thought there is an argument here as it seems the unions have gone out of their way to make the disruption as widespread as possible by instructing other steachers not to take on classes of pupils whose teachers are striking. Clearly such a lawsuit would require mass co-operation of parents for this to make any real impact. But if it could be achieved it could produce an interesting battleground. What would the union response be I wonder?
Rob_T said:
Whilst the teachers strike does not effect me, I am wondering what the potential is for parents to sue the unions for loss of earnings as a result of not being able to work on thursday. I would have thought there is an argument here as it seems the unions have gone out of their way to make the disruption as widespread as possible by instructing other steachers not to take on classes of pupils whose teachers are striking. Clearly such a lawsuit would require mass co-operation of parents for this to make any real impact. But if it could be achieved it could produce an interesting battleground. What would the union response be I wonder?
I take it you were not around in the 70's and 80's when every man and his dog went on strike, I cant remember any claims going in then for earnings lost.phumy said:
I take it you were not around in the 70's and 80's when every man and his dog went on strike, I cant remember any claims going in then for earnings lost.
Let's face it Phumy, the UK is full of f
king pussies who'd rather litigate over everything than man the fk up and get on with their lives. Sad to see us disappearing up our own aholes like the yanks have done with our compensation culture.It seems pretty likely that the protection given to strikers will be eroded if these strikes become serious. People should, of course, have the right to not come in to work, if they don't want to, but as per their contract, they should give formal written notice of their intention to resign.
I can't see any reason that a member of staff can, in effect, tell their employer that they are going to pick and chose whether to work yet still expect to keep their job. It'll not be a surprise if it becomes easier to let strikers go, which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
I can't see any reason that a member of staff can, in effect, tell their employer that they are going to pick and chose whether to work yet still expect to keep their job. It'll not be a surprise if it becomes easier to let strikers go, which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
ExChrispy Porker said:
No
Trade Disputes Act 1906
And the background to that Act:Trade Disputes Act 1906
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taff_Vale_Railway_Co_...
singlecoil said:
Striking is a bit ike a kid stamping its feet in rage. It's understood by the striker (and the kid) that it's not going to do any good, but it's still nice to let everyone know just how cross you are.
Indeed.When trade unions were envisaged it was to protect the rights of the individual or group of workers against a company to stop them bullying workers.
However, today, a strike is usually used as a bullying tactic by a union with the bargaining chips being the inconvenience to the general public.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff